AV would have given LibDems real choice of coalition partner

... or so the Guardian headline reads in reporting the findings of a University of Essex study:

The Liberal Democrats would have had greater freedom to choose whether to form a majority coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour if the last election had been held under the alternative vote system, according to research conducted for the University of Essex.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, is due to answer questions today on the coalition's plans to stage a referendum on AV next May, with some backbench Tories concerned that the poll will prevent the Conservatives governing alone again. He is due to answer questions on two constitutional reform bills to be published in the next fortnight.

Clegg told the Guardian last week that he expected coalitions to become a near permanent feature of the political landscape as old tribal loyalties break down.

The research, the British Election Study (BES), suggests AV would have given the Tories 283 seats (down 22), Labour 248 (down 10) and the Lib Dems 89 (up 32). The Lib Dems would have obtained their additional seats at the expense of both the other parties.

David Sanders, professor of politics at Essex, said: "This outcome would have radically changed the arithmetic of post-election coalition formation. The Liberal Democrats would in effect have been able to form a majority coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives."

 Read the rest!

Supreme Court makes key ruling on gay asylum seekers

BBC Online today reports news of fundamental importance to the UK's stance on gay asylum seekers—a ruling by the newly-formed Supreme Court:

Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal (link)

Lord Hope said that homosexual acts may be punishable by death in Iran — Two gay men who said they faced persecution in their home countries have the right to asylum in the UK, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The BBC's Clive Coleman provides a concise analysis:

Today's decision marks a complete change in the approach that will be taken by tribunals and courts to applications for asylum by gay people.

The Supreme Court has unanimously and unequivocally demolished the previous approach, whereby it was acceptable to return gay asylum seekers if it was considered that by being discreet about their sexuality, they could lead a life that was "reasonably tolerable".

The Supreme Court has made clear that to compel a homosexual person to pretend that their sexuality does not exist, or to require them to suppress the manifestation of it, is to deny them their fundamental identity.

Gay people should be entitled to the same rights of freedom of association and expression as straight people.

All future applications in the UK, which relate to countries that sponsor or condone the persecution of homosexuals, will have to apply the Supreme Court's guidance.

Make an effort to read the entire article, which summarises this landmark ruling and provides useful background to the two cases in question: Punishment for homosexual acts ranges from public flogging to execution in Iran, and in Cameroon jail sentences for homosexuality range from six months to five years (!)

If nothing else, this ruling by the Supreme Court forms a brilliant current example of the UK judiciary making and interpreting law....  Perfect for Unit 2!